Analysis of 36 individuals over age 60 years who were immunized with Zostavax revealed varicella zoster virus (VZV) DNA in swabs of skin inoculation sites obtained immediately after immunization in 18 (50%) of 36 subjects (copy number per nanogram of total DNA, 28 to 2.1 × 106) and in saliva collected over 28 days in 21 (58%) of 36 subjects (copy number, 20 to 248). Genotypic analysis of DNA extracted from 9 random saliva samples identified vaccine virus in all instances. In some immunized individuals over age 60, vaccine virus DNA is shed in saliva up to 4 weeks.
Varicella zoster virus (VZV) is a neurotropic alphaherpesvirus. Primary infection usually causes varicella (chicken pox) in children. Airborne VZV enters the nasopharynx and replicates in tonsillar T cells followed by viremia and skin lesions [1, 2]. After primary infection, VZV becomes latent in neurons of cranial nerve ganglia, dorsal root ganglia, and autonomic ganglia along the entire neuraxis. Decades later, VZV reactivates in elderly and immunocompromised individuals to produce zoster (shingles), a syndrome characterized by pain and a vesicular rash on an erythematous base in 1–3 dermatomes. Zoster is common, with ∼1,000,000 cases annually in the United States. Importantly, zoster is often followed by chronic pain (postherpetic neuralgia [PHN]) as well as by meningoencephalitis, cerebellitis, cranial nerve palsies, vasculopathy, myelopathy, and multiple inflammatory diseases of the eye [3].
To prevent zoster and its attendant neurological complications, Zostavax vaccine (Merck) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals at least 60 years of age. Over a 3-year period, Zostavax effectively reduced the risk of zoster by 51% and PHN by 66% in nearly 20,000 healthy adults age 60 years or older [4]. Zostavax contains live attenuated VZV, and the package insert warns newly vaccinated individuals to avoid contact for an unspecified time with newborn infants, immunosuppressed individuals, and pregnant women who have not had chicken pox or have not been immunized for chicken pox. Because VZV DNA is present in saliva of zoster patients for at least 2 weeks [5] and VZV in saliva can also be infectious [6], we examined the inoculation site and saliva of Zostavax-vaccinated subjects for the presence of VZV DNA for 4 weeks after immunization.

SIR,-The recommendations and medicolegal implications of smallpox vaccination have been discussed in these columns on several occasions
(11 October 1980, p 1004; 25 October, pp 1141 and 1142).
Although vaccination for the public is no longer necessary it is worth noting, as Minerva pointed out (4 April, p 1163), that it continues to be offered to the British Army (both regular and reserve). The risk of transmission of vaccinia by recently vaccinated soldiers to their close and immediate susceptible contacts therefore is likely to increase. This has been illustrated in the following case. A 23-year-old Scottish housewife was referred to the gynaecology department of this hospital on 17 December from the local family planning clinic for confirmation of diagnosis of presumed genital herpes simplex infection. The patient had developed painful itchy lesions on the vulva one week previously and she had also noticed similar lesions on her left loin and ear lobe. On examination she had large moist umbilicated vesicles on the vulva as well as on her left hip and left ear lobe. A clinical diagnosis of vaccinia was confirmed at the regional virus laboratory, Ruchill Hospital, by electron microscopy, and vaccinia virus was isolated in cell culture. These lesions rapidly regress,.d and healed with local application of betadine paint. The history of contact with a vaccinated person was not volunteered; but on close questioning it was revealed that the patient’s husband, who had joined the Royal Air Force, had been vaccinated three weeks previously and had been home at weekends. The patient herself had not been vaccinated in the past. In 1980, of six reported incidents of contact vaccinia received by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre,1 one was almost identical to our own case: a young woman whose soldier husband had been vaccinated three weeks previously developed genital vaccinia. Another case was in a soldier who had taken part in a boxing match and may have been infected by a colleague. The immediate and obvious question that arises is whether vaccination in the armed Forces is justifiable when there is no valid medical reason for it, and it is no longer necessary for international travel (except to Chad and democratic Kampuchea). The policy of smallpox vaccination has been discussed in a recent editorial of the Jrournal of the Royal Army Medical Corps2 and the main argument for vaccination seems to be to protect the Forces against the possible use of smallpox virus by an enemy as an agent of biological warfare. If the vaccination of the army personnel should continue because of this unlikely but perfectly feasible threat of germ warfare, one can only endorse the view that “Continued education of service personnel and their contacts about the risk and its prevention is now, therefore, even more essential than before.”3 Otherwise we might see more cases of genital vaccinia in women transmitted from recently vaccinated young, healthy, virile British soldiers.

US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health – Feb 2012

Abstract
Since 2002, approximately 40,000 US civilians and 2.1 million military personnel have been vaccinated against smallpox. The vaccine contains live vaccinia virus that can be transferred through physical contact. This report summarizes numbers, rates, and characteristics of contact vaccinia cases that presented between December 2002 and March 2011. Cases were identified from reports in adverse event reporting systems and peer-reviewed literature. One hundred fifteen cases of vaccinia transmission through contact were identified (5.4 per 100,000 vaccinees); 52 reports (45%) noted laboratory confirmation. Three-quarters of vaccinees, but fewer than 8% of contact vaccinia cases, were described as military members. Most cases were household or intimate contacts (n=86, 75%) or wrestling partners (n=18, 16%) of vaccinees. Nearly all cases manifested mild, local skin reactions; of 14 hospitalized cases, one was life-threatening. Vaccinia transmission from vaccinees is relatively infrequent. Continued attention to both vaccinee education and screening for contraindications to vaccination is appropriate.

VAXXED TV – Lunchtime in Australia

Channel 7 news Australia

Fake News on The Radio!

MMR Gave my son autism

My son is vaccine injured

Vaccines injured me and my daughter

Q&A Brisbane, Australia

Sunshine Coast people’s study – Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated

Q&A Maleny, Australia #vaxxed #PrayBig

What I Know Now

****************************************************

ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry – Jewish Johnathan Ben-David forgave his killer and you would not believe why!!!

1 Corinthians 15 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Hebrews 6 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 but that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,and as a root out of a dry ground:he hath no form nor comeliness;and when we shall see him,there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men;a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:and we hid as it were our faces from him;he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs,and carried our sorrows:yet we did esteem him stricken,smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions,he was bruised for our iniquities:the chastisement of our peace was upon him;and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;we have turned every one to his own way;and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,yet he opened not his mouth:he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment:and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living:for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked,and with the rich in his death;because he had done no violence,neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him;he hath put him to grief:when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;because he hath poured out his soul unto death:and he was numbered with the transgressors;and he bare the sin of many,and made intercession for the transgressors.

Analysis of 36 individuals over age 60 years who were immunized with Zostavax revealed varicella zoster virus (VZV) DNA in swabs of skin inoculation sites obtained immediately after immunization in 18 (50%) of 36 subjects (copy number per nanogram of total DNA, 28 to 2.1 × 106) and in saliva collected over 28 days in 21 (58%) of 36 subjects (copy number, 20 to 248). Genotypic analysis of DNA extracted from 9 random saliva samples identified vaccine virus in all instances. In some immunized individuals over age 60, vaccine virus DNA is shed in saliva up to 4 weeks.
Varicella zoster virus (VZV) is a neurotropic alphaherpesvirus. Primary infection usually causes varicella (chicken pox) in children. Airborne VZV enters the nasopharynx and replicates in tonsillar T cells followed by viremia and skin lesions [1, 2]. After primary infection, VZV becomes latent in neurons of cranial nerve ganglia, dorsal root ganglia, and autonomic ganglia along the entire neuraxis. Decades later, VZV reactivates in elderly and immunocompromised individuals to produce zoster (shingles), a syndrome characterized by pain and a vesicular rash on an erythematous base in 1–3 dermatomes. Zoster is common, with ∼1,000,000 cases annually in the United States. Importantly, zoster is often followed by chronic pain (postherpetic neuralgia [PHN]) as well as by meningoencephalitis, cerebellitis, cranial nerve palsies, vasculopathy, myelopathy, and multiple inflammatory diseases of the eye [3].
To prevent zoster and its attendant neurological complications, Zostavax vaccine (Merck) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals at least 60 years of age. Over a 3-year period, Zostavax effectively reduced the risk of zoster by 51% and PHN by 66% in nearly 20,000 healthy adults age 60 years or older [4]. Zostavax contains live attenuated VZV, and the package insert warns newly vaccinated individuals to avoid contact for an unspecified time with newborn infants, immunosuppressed individuals, and pregnant women who have not had chicken pox or have not been immunized for chicken pox. Because VZV DNA is present in saliva of zoster patients for at least 2 weeks [5] and VZV in saliva can also be infectious [6], we examined the inoculation site and saliva of Zostavax-vaccinated subjects for the presence of VZV DNA for 4 weeks after immunization.

US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health – Aug 1977

Abstract
We investigated an immunodeficient child in whom chronic progressive poliomyelitis developed after she had received live oral poliovirus vaccine. Poliovirus, Type II, was isolated from throat and stool during life and from several sites within the brain at autopsy. The brain isolate was classified as vaccine-like on the basis of temperature sensitivity and antigenic markers. However, in the monkey neurovirulence test, the brain isolate produced moderately severe lesions throughout the spinal cord and brainstem and appeared nonvaccine-like. Thus, the brain isolate demonstrated a dissociation between the antigenic and neurovirulence markers. Our observations suggest that, under unusual circumstances, such as immunodeficiency, attenuated poliovirus can produce a chronic progressive neurologic disease. This case also emphasizes the need to diagnose immunodeficiency as early as possible, so that live-virus vaccines will not be administered.

Parents in Melbourne

IT’S NOT JUST THE MMR

Gardasil killed my 16 year old daughter

Homeopathy Saved My Son

Brian Hooker on Hit 105 Brisbane radio

Q&A Australian National University, Science Department

Newcastle, Australia stories

When Will it Stop?

Highwire with Del Bigtree from Australia

Stories in Port Macquarie, Australia

****************************************************

ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry – Jewish Johnathan Ben-David forgave his killer and you would not believe why!!!

1 Corinthians 15 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Hebrews 6 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 but that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,and as a root out of a dry ground:he hath no form nor comeliness;and when we shall see him,there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men;a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:and we hid as it were our faces from him;he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs,and carried our sorrows:yet we did esteem him stricken,smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions,he was bruised for our iniquities:the chastisement of our peace was upon him;and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;we have turned every one to his own way;and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,yet he opened not his mouth:he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment:and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living:for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked,and with the rich in his death;because he had done no violence,neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him;he hath put him to grief:when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;because he hath poured out his soul unto death:and he was numbered with the transgressors;and he bare the sin of many,and made intercession for the transgressors.

Lead developer of HPV vaccine admits it’s a giant, deadly scam
Thursday, September 29, 2016 by: Samantha Debbie
(NaturalNews) An expert involved in the approval process for the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix, is speaking out about the dangers and why you shouldn’t risk your child’s health in getting them.
Diane Harper, M.D., professor and chair of the department of Family and Geriatric Medicine at the University of Louisville, revealed at the 4th International Conference on Vaccination that HPV vaccines are essentially worthless, because rates of cervical cancer in the U.S. are extremely low anyway.
Her speech was intended to promote the benefits of vaccines, but she changed her mind and went in a different direction in an effort to “clean her conscience about the deadly vaccines,” according to The Daily Sheeple.
Dr. Harper, a former vaccine research scientist for Merck, said she wouldn’t be able to sleep at night unless she aired the truth about HPV vaccines. In her speech, given in Reston, Virginia, she said that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment, and 90 percent do so within two years.
Over 40 young girls reported to have died from HPV vaccines
All safety trials for HPV vaccines were done on 15-year-olds, said Dr. Harper, and not 9-year-olds, the demographic for which the immunizations are now recommended. Furthermore, there is a real risk associated with these vaccines, she added.
More than 15,000 girls have experienced adverse side effects from Gardasil, according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). A number likely to be far higher in reality, since many vaccine side effects go unreported.
At least 44 girls are known to have died from these vaccines. Some side effects experienced by those receiving the HPV vaccines include seizures, blood clots, brain inflammation, lupus and Guillain Barre Syndrome, a rare but serious autoimmune deficiency that causes the immune system to attack and damage nerve cells.
While the majority of those with GBS recover, the disorder may cause muscle weakness, difficulty breathing, paralysis and sometimes death.
As with most vaccines, parents are usually not made aware of the risks.
HPV vaccines work on only four of the 40 strains of the venereal disease

How Vaccinated Kids Infect The Non-Vaccinated
Posted on:Sunday, February 8th 2015 at 3:45 pm Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2015
With the thousands of mainstream media articles blaming the non-vaccinated for disease outbreaks, this article will provide a necessary counterbalance by showing the vaccinated can (and do) infect the non-vaccinated…
A groundbreaking study published in 2013 in the journal Vaccine titled, “Comparison of virus shedding after lived attenuated and pentavalent reassortant rotavirus vaccine,” referenced the fact that rotavirus vaccines contain live viruses capable of causing infection, shedding and even transmission to non-vaccinated subjects:
“In fact, transmission of these two rotavirus vaccines or vaccine-reassortment strains to unvaccinated contacts has been detected [9–13][1], even in the absence of symptoms.”
One of the five studies referenced in the passage above confirming that the vaccinated can infect the non-vaccinated, “Sibling transmission of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq) associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis,” published in 2009, is the first report in the literature to identify the transmission of rotavirus vaccine-derived virus to unvaccinated contacts resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis requiring emergency medical attention:
“We document here the occurrence of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq [Merck and Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ]) transmission from a vaccinated infant to an older, unvaccinated sibling, resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis that required emergency department care.”
The study also indicated that two of the five strains of rotavirus within the Rotateq reassorted to produce a more harmful virus either within the vaccinated infant or within the subsequently infected unvaccinated sibling:
“Results of our investigation suggest that reassortment between vaccine component strains of genotypes P7[5]G1 and P1A[8]G6 occurred during replication either in the vaccinated infant or in the older sibling, raising the possibility that this reassortment may have increased the virulence of the vaccine-derived virus.”
This phenomenon of Rotateq vaccine strain reassortment and subsequent gastoenteritis infection in vaccine recipients was also observed in a 2012 study in 61 infants.[2] Additionally, A Nicaraguan study published in 2012 found “the widespread use of the RotaTeq vaccine has led to the introduction of vaccine genes into circulating human RVs.,” revealing that the widespread introduction of the vaccine strain has altered the genetic makeup of wild-type rotavirus that now infects exposed populations.[3]
It has been estimated that between 80-100% of infants shed rotavirus at some point during 25-28 days after vaccination.[4] [5] This reveals that the vaccinated, contrary to widespread assumptions about the the risks represented by the non-vaccinated, pose a clear risk of infecting the non-vaccinated, and may be producing the ideal virological conditions for the recombination of diverse rotavirus strains into vaccine-resistant ‘super viruses.’
Another case study, reported on in the National Vaccine Information Center’s document on vaccine viral shedding:
“In 2010, a case report was published in Pediatrics describing a 30-month old healthy boy who had never received rotavirus vaccine and was infected with vaccine strain rotavirus. 237 He ended up in the emergency room with severe gastroenteritis 10 days after his healthy two-month old brother was given a dose of Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine. A stool sample was taken in the emergency room and came back positive for RotaTeq vaccine derived strains after RT-PCR testing.”
The authors of the case report noted that “transmission of RotaTeq strains to unvaccinated contacts was not evaluated in the pivotal [pre-licensure] clinical trials.” They added that both RotaTeq and Rotarix [GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals] vaccines have “the potential for vaccine-virus transmission to contacts.”

Study 2014 Feb 26 – Comparison of virus shedding after lived attenuated and pentavalent reassortant rotavirus vaccine.
Transmission of rotavirus vaccine or vaccine-reassortant strains to unvaccinated contacts has been reported. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate and characterize the nature of vaccine-virus shedding among rotavirus vaccine recipients. Two groups of healthy infants who received a complete course of RotaTeq (RV5) or Rotarix (RV2) were enrolled (between March 2010 and June 2011) to compare fecal shedding for one month after each vaccine dose. Shedding was assessed using both enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Eighty-seven infants (34 girls and 53 boys) were enrolled in the study. After the first vaccine dose, the peak time of virus shedding occurred between day 4 and day 7, with positive detection rates of 80-90% by real-time RT-PCR and 20-30% by EIA. In both groups, vaccine shedding occurred as early as one day and as late as 25-28 days. Mixed effects logistic regression analysis of real-time RT-PCR data showed no significant differences between two groups when shedding rates were compared after the first vaccine dose (odds ratio [OR] 1.26; P=0.71) or after the second vaccine dose (odds ratio [OR] 1.26; P=0.99). However, infants receiving RV2 shed significantly higher viral loads than those receiving RV5 when compared after the first vaccine dose (P=0.001) and after the second dose (P=0.039). In terms of shedding rates detected by real-time RT-PCR, vaccine uptake of RV5 or RV2 among infants in Taiwan was comparable. Clinical significance of higher shedding viral loads in RV2 should be further observed.

Study 2010 Feb – Sibling transmission of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq) associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis.
Although rotavirus vaccines are known to be shed in stools, transmission of vaccine-derived virus to unvaccinated contacts resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis has not been reported to our knowledge. We document here the occurrence of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq [Merck and Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ]) transmission from a vaccinated infant to an older, unvaccinated sibling, resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis that required emergency department care. Results of our investigation suggest that reassortment between vaccine component strains of genotypes P7[5]G1 and P1A[8]G6 occurred during replication either in the vaccinated infant or in the older sibling, raising the possibility that this reassortment may have increased the virulence of the vaccine-derived virus. Both children remain healthy 11 months after this event and are without underlying medical conditions.

CDC – The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission
Referenced Report from the National Vaccine Information Center
by Barbara Loe Fisher Co-founder & President
Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice.
Can People Receiving Live Virus Vaccines Transmit Vaccine Strain Virus to Others?
Public health officials say that unvaccinated children pose a big danger to those around them and even threaten the health of fully vaccinated children and adults because vaccines can fail to prevent infection in vaccinated persons.
Today, the most common argument used to justify “no exceptions” mandatory vaccination laws is that unvaccinated people pose a serious health threat to others who “cannot be vaccinated,” such as the immunocompromised.
Some parents of unvaccinated children are asking the opposite question:
Could my unvaccinated or immune compromised child get sick from coming in contact with a recently vaccinated person?
When it comes to live virus vaccines, the short answer is:
Yes.
During a viral infection, live virus is shed in the body fluids of those who are infected for varying amounts of time and can be transmitted to others. Vaccine strain live virus is also shed for varying amounts of time in the body fluids of vaccinated people and can be transmitted to others. Although public health officials maintain that live attenuated virus vaccines rarely cause complications in the vaccinated person and that vaccine strain viral shedding rarely causes disease in close contacts of the recently vaccinated, it is important to be aware that vaccine strain live virus infection can sometimes cause serious complications in vaccinated persons and vaccine strain live viruses can be shed and transmitted to others with serious or even fatal consequences

Censored Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated sees Daylight
by James O. Grundvig
The study defined NDD as “Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability.”
The Study Accepted, Released, Censored
Frontiers Journal received the study on September 17, 2016. After a two-month peer review process, published it on November 21 for its “68,000 on board editors” from institutions around the world (www.frontiersin.org), with the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Harvard University being the top two providing the science editors.
Over the course of four days, more than 80,000 views of the study found it important enough to read, going “viral” according to one familiar with its release. Then on November 28, the bottom fell out when Frontiers scrapped the publication. In one week, it went from being accepted, published, and then retracted. The abstract can still be found online.
The paper, however, wasn’t retracted; it was “unaccepted,” according to Mawson via email. That means Frontiers didn’t retract it, since it was never officially published. What’s left for a study after its accepted, reviewed 80,000 times in less than 100 hours? . . . Censorship.
Beyond that clarification, Mawson wrote: “I am not allowed to comment on the paper/work by my Dean.”
Melissa Cochrane, the communications manager for Frontiers Journal, which is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, replied via email:
“As we have previously noted, this article was provisionally accepted but not published. In response to concerns raised regarding the abstract and the provisional PDF — which were made provisionally available online — Frontiers then reopened its review. Following further manuscript assessment by the Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Public Health, in consultation with an external expert, the manuscript was subsequently rejected, not retracted as retraction can only occur once a paper has been officially published and indexed.
“The rejection was due to severe limitations in the validity of the results.”
A day later, Ms. Cochrane replied to an email seeking clarification on the “rejection” process, writing:
“The reasons for the rejection were communicated in more detail to the corresponding author but I am unable to give you the reviewer’s comments as the Frontiers’ review process involves an open and collaborative dialogue between the reviewers and the authors, all of whom participate with the understanding and security that Frontiers will keep these exchanges confidential, as explained in our terms of use. You can read more about the Frontiers peer review process here.”
Vaccines Cause Health Issues Big and Small

Metals Debris Found in Vaccine Supply
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
A landmark new study has found metal debris and biological contamination in every human vaccine tested. The study should have profound and immediate impact on public health policies and vaccine industry procedures around the globe.
A team of scientists used a highly sensitive technology—an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an x-ray microprobe—to scan for solid contaminants in 44 samples of 30 vaccines. The researchers reported their results in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination. They found widespread contamination by toxic aluminum salts, red blood cells of unknown origin and inorganic, foreign particle debris in aggregates, clusters and independent particulates. The composition of those clusters, the researchers observe, are consistent with “burnt waste.”

Study – New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro-and NanocontaminationInternational Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination
Abstract
Vaccines are being under investigation for the possible side effects they can cause. In order to supply new information, an electron-microscopy investigation method was applied to the study of vaccines, aimed at verifying the presence of solid contaminants by means of an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an X-ray microprobe. The results of this new investigation show the presence of micro- and nanosized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements in vaccines’ samples which is not declared among the components and whose unduly presence is, for the time being, inexplicable. A considerable part of those particulate contaminants have already been verified in other matrices and reported in literature as non biodegradable and non biocompatible. The evidence collected is suggestive of some hypotheses correlated to diseases that are mentioned and briefly discussed.

Merck Admits Shingles Vaccine Can Cause Eye Damage…and Shingles
Two important FDA approved changes to the warning label of Merck Pharmaceutical’s shingles vaccine, Zostavax, have been made since the controversial drug was introduced in 2006. The first was in August 2014, when, in addition to potentially causing chickenpox, another side effect was added: shingles! That’s right. The vaccine that had been – and continues to be — aggressively marketed to prevent seniors from contracting this excruciating condition was found to actually cause shingles in some individuals.
In February of this year, the FDA approved a label change to warn those who prescribe the Zostavax vaccine of another potential side effect: “Eye Disorders: necrotizing retinitis.”

Shingles Vaccine Eye Damage
The shinglesZostovax vaccine Merck Pharmaceuticals has been marketing since 2006 now comes with a warning that it could cause eye damage. February 17, 2016, the FDA approved a label change to Merck’s Zostamax vaccine prescribing information. The change to the label added “Eye Disorders: necrotizing retinitis.” Merck consequently faces Shingles Vaccine Lawsuits over this dubious vaccine.
Keratitis Vision Damage from Vaccines
WebMD reported that researchers found 20 cases of keratitis in children and adults that occurred within a month of receiving a chickenpox or shingles vaccine. Keratitis symptoms for adults developed within 24 days of vaccination, while symptoms in children began within 14 days of vaccination. Researchers concluded there is a probable relationship between the vaccine and the eye inflammation, though the study wasn’t designed to prove the vaccine actually caused the condition. (Of course it wasn’t.)
Keratitis causes inflammation and scarring of the eye tissue. If one fails to get treated fast, it can lead to permanent vision loss.
Health Sciences Institute (HSI) points out in a Jan 21, 2016 piece that the researchers say they don’t know why the shingles shot may cause keratitis, but we do know that keratitis has been linked to autoimmune disorders, and that shots like the shingles vaccine can profoundly short circuit the immune system.
The mainstream media didn’t miss a beat, of course, telling us that despite these little “side effects” (hardly worth a mention, really), it’s still a good idea to get the shingles vaccine, and never mind the fact that it barely works at all, or perhaps causes more cases of shingles than it prevents.
Shingles Vaccine causes Shingles
The mainstream failszostovax to tell us that the shingles vaccine causes shingles. Funny they leave that out, because even the FDA is aware now that the shingles vaccine features an absurd problem. In August 2014, FDA approved a change to the shingles vaccine warnings label to include that the shingles vaccine causes – wait for it – shingles! Yes, you read that right.
Shingles Vaccine Fails to Work as Advertised
HSI further points out that “UCLA researchers found that only one in 175 people who get the vaccine will be able to dodge a shingles flare-up. And if you’re over 70, you’d be lucky to get those odds.”
So these people from WebMD and other mainstream media outlets who take endless money in advertising from Big Pharma and never see a drug or vaccine campaign they don’t like, are now telling you it’s worth risking eye damage, maybe up to blindness, to take a shingles shot that fails more than 99 percent of the time, and uh, just happens to also give you shingles? That’s a chance worth taking? You take it, friend. We shall pass on the shingles vaccine.

Scientists Prove Those Vaccinated for Shingles Can Infect Others with Chicken Pox
For many years, the US government and mainstream media have continued to blame the unvaccinated community for the spread of infectious disease. We are constantly being bombarded with statements like the one written by Philip Ross and published in the International Business Times, which stated:
“The American classroom has become a battleground for parents who are threatened by the growing number of children not vaccinated against measles, one of the most highly contagious viruses in the world. The ongoing measles outbreak in the U.S. that started at Disneyland and has spread to 14 states has raised concerns over the country’s rising anti-vaccination movement, including whether the decision to vaccinate against such a dangerous disease should be left to parents, and what constitutes responsible childrearing. Should a child whose parents chose not to vaccinate be allowed to share the same pencils and playground as children whose parents did?”
Although the International Business Times had attempted to present the public with a balanced review of the situation facing parents, it is questionable as to whether they presented any real evidence to support their claims and they left many readers with unanswered questions.
Shingles Vaccines Cause Chicken Pox in the Unvaccinated
Duane Pierson stated that:
“Inoculation site samples taken within 10 minutes after vaccination were positive for Zostavax VZV DNA in 18 (50%) of 36 subjects. The VZV DNA copy number per nanogram of total DNA ranged from 28 to 2.1 × 106 (Table 1), possibly reflecting the presence of infectious virus since no alcohol or other agent was used to wipe the skin after inoculation.
No saliva specimen collected immediately before immunization contained VZV DNA. During the first week after immunization, VZV DNA was detected in saliva of 21 (58%) of 36 subjects (13 men and 8 women). During the 28-day study period, VZV DNA was found in 11 (31%) of 36 subjects (5 men and 6 women) at day 14, in 10 (28%) of 36 subjects (6 men and 4 women) at day 21, and in 2 (6%) of 36 subjects (1 man and 1 woman) at day 28.”
The authors concluded:
“Finally, that while transmission of vaccine virus has not been found among vaccine recipients, the detection of VZV DNA in saliva of Zostavax recipients for up to 28 days suggests that contact with saliva of recently immunized individuals represents a potential source of transmission.”

Analysis of 36 individuals over age 60 years who were immunized with Zostavax revealed varicella zoster virus (VZV) DNA in swabs of skin inoculation sites obtained immediately after immunization in 18 (50%) of 36 subjects (copy number per nanogram of total DNA, 28 to 2.1 × 106) and in saliva collected over 28 days in 21 (58%) of 36 subjects (copy number, 20 to 248). Genotypic analysis of DNA extracted from 9 random saliva samples identified vaccine virus in all instances. In some immunized individuals over age 60, vaccine virus DNA is shed in saliva up to 4 weeks.
Varicella zoster virus (VZV) is a neurotropic alphaherpesvirus. Primary infection usually causes varicella (chicken pox) in children. Airborne VZV enters the nasopharynx and replicates in tonsillar T cells followed by viremia and skin lesions [1, 2]. After primary infection, VZV becomes latent in neurons of cranial nerve ganglia, dorsal root ganglia, and autonomic ganglia along the entire neuraxis. Decades later, VZV reactivates in elderly and immunocompromised individuals to produce zoster (shingles), a syndrome characterized by pain and a vesicular rash on an erythematous base in 1–3 dermatomes. Zoster is common, with ∼1,000,000 cases annually in the United States. Importantly, zoster is often followed by chronic pain (postherpetic neuralgia [PHN]) as well as by meningoencephalitis, cerebellitis, cranial nerve palsies, vasculopathy, myelopathy, and multiple inflammatory diseases of the eye [3].
To prevent zoster and its attendant neurological complications, Zostavax vaccine (Merck) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals at least 60 years of age. Over a 3-year period, Zostavax effectively reduced the risk of zoster by 51% and PHN by 66% in nearly 20,000 healthy adults age 60 years or older [4]. Zostavax contains live attenuated VZV, and the package insert warns newly vaccinated individuals to avoid contact for an unspecified time with newborn infants, immunosuppressed individuals, and pregnant women who have not had chicken pox or have not been immunized for chicken pox. Because VZV DNA is present in saliva of zoster patients for at least 2 weeks [5] and VZV in saliva can also be infectious [6], we examined the inoculation site and saliva of Zostavax-vaccinated subjects for the presence of VZV DNA for 4 weeks after immunization.

Study: Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine Enhances Colonization of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus in Mice ABSTRACT
Community interactions at mucosal surfaces between viruses, like influenza virus, and respiratory bacterial pathogens are important contributors toward pathogenesis of bacterial disease. What has not been considered is the natural extension of these interactions to live attenuated immunizations, and in particular, live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs). Using a mouse-adapted LAIV against influenza A (H3N2) virus carrying the same mutations as the human FluMist vaccine, we find that LAIV vaccination reverses normal bacterial clearance from the nasopharynx and significantly increases bacterial carriage densities of the clinically important bacterial pathogens Streptococcus pneumoniae (serotypes 19F and 7F) and Staphylococcus aureus (strains Newman and Wright) within the upper respiratory tract of mice. Vaccination with LAIV also resulted in 2- to 5-fold increases in mean durations of bacterial carriage. Furthermore, we show that the increases in carriage density and duration were nearly identical in all aspects to changes in bacterial colonizing dynamics following infection with wild-type (WT) influenza virus. Importantly, LAIV, unlike WT influenza viruses, had no effect on severe bacterial disease or mortality within the lower respiratory tract. Our findings are, to the best of our knowledge, the first to demonstrate that vaccination with a live attenuated viral vaccine can directly modulate colonizing dynamics of important and unrelated human bacterial pathogens, and does so in a manner highly analogous to that seen following wild-type virus infection.